9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gdish Singh, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - In this appeal M/s. Amar Alloys (Pvt.) Limited are challenging the demand of duty and imposition of penalty against them by the Commissioner, under the impugned order. 2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture non-alloy steel ingots which attracted payment of Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e basic intention in law is that the intimation should be given for the period of closure of the factory; no duty is payable by them as the entire duty pertains to the period the factory remained closed. Finally, he submitted that as no duty was payable by them there is no question of payment of any interest and penalty. 3. Countering the arguments, Shri Jagdish Singh, learned JDR, submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty in two instalments i.e. 15th of each month and by the last day of the each month. No doubt sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZO provided for abatement of duty, if the factory remains closed for continuous period of not less than seven days abatement under rule has to be allowed by an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. It, therefore, flows from the provisions of law that the Appellants h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand of duty as confirmed by the Commissioner under the impugned order. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that imposition of penalty is not warranted in the present matter. Accordingly, we set aside the penalty imposed on the Appellants. The learned Advocate has requested that, the direction may be given to the Commissioner to decide the aba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
